What got delivered
ACE Parkway sits in Sector 150, Noida — a three-side-open corner plot opposite the 42-acre Shaheed Bhagat Singh Park. The finished project comprises 11 towers rising to 26 floors, holding 970 units across 2, 3 and 4 BHK configurations (a handful of portals also list a 5 BHK ultra-luxury option), with unit sizes cited from roughly 1,085 to 3,220 sq.ft. across the portal set we reviewed Reported (whitehat.realty; 99acres; Square Yards; Star Estate). One project page we fetched directly showed a narrower 3/4 BHK-only band (1,750–3,220 sq.ft.), which doesn't fully square with the wider 2–5 BHK range other portals describe — a reminder that even "specs" pages disagree in this market, and it's worth confirming your specific configuration's exact carpet area against the RERA-filed floor plan rather than a portal summary.
The architect is Hafeez Contractor, credited consistently and independently across every source we checked Confirmed. Landscape design is credited to Sanju Bose and interiors on the sample/showcase flats to Gauri Khan — both claims recur across marketing-adjacent portal pages, but they read as mirrors of the same builder press material rather than separately-sourced confirmation, so we're marking both Reported rather than confirmed. If either credit matters to your decision, ask ACE Group directly for the underlying design credit documentation.
The density question we couldn't resolve
Unresolved ACE's own marketing leans on a "low-density" claim — commonly cited as 85 units per acre — built on a stated project area of 11.26 acres for 970 units, and that 11.26-acre figure is what most portals (whitehat.realty, 99acres, Square Yards, homesnut) repeat. But Star Estate's own project page states 6.79 acres for the identical 970 units and 11 towers Gap. Do the arithmetic on 6.79 acres instead and density comes out closer to 143 units per acre — a meaningfully denser project than the "low density, 79% open space" framing implies.
We went looking for an authoritative tie-breaker and didn't find one: UP-RERA's own public project summary for UPRERAPRJ4514 does not carry a land-area field we could check either number against, and the two portals don't cite a shared primary source. We're naming this conflict rather than quietly picking whichever number sounds better — if plot size and density matter to your decision, ask ACE Group directly for the sanctioned layout plan, which will carry the actual plot area on record with the local development authority.
How delivery went
ACE Parkway launched in March 2017 and was registered with UP-RERA on 9 August 2017, with a declared completion date of 31 December 2021 Confirmed (up-rera.in project summary, accessed 6 Jul 2026). That date did not hold as originally filed — UP-RERA's own extension record shows the completion date was pushed to 30 June 2022, citing COVID-19 force majeure, and then extended a second time to 29 June 2023 Confirmed (same source). Property portals separately report possession activity beginning around June 2022 Reported, which puts the practical handover experience closer to the first extension than the second — real slippage against the original 2021 date, but a delay measured in months on a single extension cycle rather than the multi-year overruns that show up elsewhere in NCR's delivery record. Read plainly: this was not an on-time delivery against the original filing, but it also wasn't an open-ended one — the delay is documented, dated, and (per the filing) partly attributed to a pandemic-era force majeure rather than an unexplained developer slip.
UP-RERA's public complaint register additionally shows 3 complaints logged against this project Confirmed (existence) — the summary page we accessed doesn't break down their subject matter or resolution status, so we can't tell you whether they concern delay, quality, or something else Gap. If a specific unit or tower's history matters to your decision, that's a targeted question worth putting to UP-RERA's complaint search directly rather than inferring from the aggregate count.
Resident commentary on the delivery experience itself is genuinely split. On the positive side, reviewers describe well-executed common areas, a strong amenity package, and construction quality that holds up against nearby competition Reported (MouthShut; Justdial). On the negative side, a recurring cluster of complaints — poor post-handover maintenance (lifts going out of service, disproportionately affecting senior residents), pest and garbage-handling issues, weak mobile network reception inside some towers, and reports of interior work left incomplete in individual units despite the showcase-flat marketing — appears across multiple review threads Reported (MouthShut). A smaller number of reviewers also allege friction with the project's resale/CRM process. We're not able to independently verify the substance of any single complaint; we're reporting that the theme recurs across an independent review platform, which is different from confirming any individual claim.
What resale looks like today
ACE Parkway is actively traded on the secondary market — this is not a project where resale is theoretical. Portal-listed asking prices, as tracked for this review on 6 July 2026, cluster as follows:
| Portal | Listed asking range | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| MagicBricks | ~₹1.55 Cr – ₹4.60 Cr | Portal listing band Reported |
| Housing.com | ~₹1.52 Cr – ₹4.51 Cr | Portal listing band Reported |
| 99acres | ~₹1.51 Cr – ₹4.82 Cr | 2 BHK from ₹1.63 Cr, 3 BHK from ₹2.09 Cr, 4 BHK from ₹4.82 Cr; per-sq-ft ₹14,150→₹14,450 in Q1 2026 (+2.12%) Reported |
A methodology note, in the interest of not overstating our own precision: direct automated access to MagicBricks' and Housing.com's live listing pages was blocked to our verification tools during this pass (both return access errors to automated fetches), so those two bands are recorded as last tracked rather than independently re-confirmed line-by-line in this session. The 99acres band, by contrast, we could independently reconstruct via cross-portal aggregation (whitehat.realty and Square Yards echo a closely aligned ₹1.63 Cr–₹4.83 Cr range) Confirmed. One outlier listing surfaced at roughly ₹11.11 Cr, almost certainly a larger duplex/penthouse resale rather than a typical unit — don't anchor on it.
Portal asking price ≠ transaction price. Every figure above is a seller's or broker's listed ask, not a confirmed registered sale-deed value. NCR resale listings routinely sit above what actually closes, and portal ranges shift daily as listings are added, priced down, or pulled. Before you treat any of these numbers as a benchmark, cross-check at least two portals' live listings and, ideally, a recent registered transaction value from the local sub-registrar for a comparable unit.
For broader context: general Sector 150 resale in "established communities" is reported around ₹11,000–13,500 per sq.ft., with the sector's residential values up roughly 128% since 2021 per one source we reviewed Reported (homesnut.com) — treat that appreciation figure as a single-source claim about a whole sector, not a guarantee for any specific unit.
Rental reality
There's a genuine, active rental market inside ACE Parkway, which matters if you're weighing this as a hold-and-rent asset rather than an own-occupy purchase. Portal-aggregated data puts monthly rent roughly between ₹29,000 and ₹65,000 depending on configuration (3 and 4 BHK units specifically cluster closer to the ₹40,000–65,000 band) Reported (99acres-sourced aggregation). As of this review, 99acres alone carried well over a hundred live rental listings and a similarly large resale-listing pool for the project — a reasonable proxy for real secondary-market liquidity, though we couldn't independently confirm exact listing counts on every individual portal, and listing counts change daily by their nature.
What this means if you're eyeing ACE Parkway 2.0
If you've come to this page because you're evaluating the newer, pre-launch ACE Parkway 2.0 and want to know "how did the original one turn out" — the honest answer is: reasonably well, with real caveats. The same developer group delivered 970 occupied units in the same sector, with a documented (not hidden) delay against the original RERA date, an amenity package residents genuinely like, and a maintenance/connectivity track record that draws real complaints alongside the praise. That's a meaningfully different starting point than a developer with no delivered project in the corridor at all — but it is not, on its own, a guarantee about how the sequel will go, and the two projects should be evaluated on separate merits and separate paperwork.
The single most important distinction: ACE Parkway (this page's subject) carries a live, delivered RERA registration — UPRERAPRJ4514. ACE Parkway 2.0 does not yet have its own project RERA number. As of July 2026, ACE Parkway 2.0 is pre-launch, with UP-RERA registration applied for but not issued — meaning the only thing on offer is a refundable Expression of Interest, not a binding booking under a registered project Confirmed (ace-parkway.com's own EOI-process explainer, accessed 6 Jul 2026). If you want the specifics of how that EOI process works and what it does and doesn't commit you to, that's covered directly at ace-parkway.com's EOI process explainer (July 2026).
Our own advisory position, stated plainly: the original ACE Parkway's delivery record is a reasonable, evidence-based reason to take the same developer group seriously on execution — it is not a reason to treat ACE Parkway 2.0 as pre-verified, or to pay anything beyond a refundable EOI before its own RERA number exists. Verify the sequel on its own record, not the original's.
Verifying this yourself
Don't take this page's word for any of it — verify directly:
- For the original ACE Parkway, search UPRERAPRJ4514 at up-rera.in to see the promoter name, registration date, extension history and complaint count for yourself.
- For ACE Parkway 2.0, search the promoter name directly on the same portal — as of this review, no project-specific RERA number exists yet, so a search by project name alone may return nothing.
- Cross-check any resale or rental figure against at least two portals, since listing prices move daily and portals occasionally disagree even on basic specs (as this review's own density conflict shows).
- For a specific unit's real transaction history, a local sub-registrar or encumbrance-certificate search will show registered sale-deed values — a more reliable benchmark than any listing price.
